Which Political Framework After the Banking-Militarist Complex is Defeated

[Alie]

A Good Historical Perspective - Veteran's Today:


http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/07/08/how-and-why-deomcracy-is-failing-us-badly/



"Revolutionary strategists must ask themselves: How can we best structure our own movement?

And: What kind of political framework should we aim for, once we relegate the Banking-Militarist Complex to the dustbin of history?"



How and Why Democracy is Failing Us Badly

"Summary: Real (or direct) democracy provides the least-flawed way of governing countries, reform organizations, and institutions. In a real democracy, the people themselves make all major political, legal, and judicial decisions. To objectively evaluate the overwhelming evidence in favor of real democracy, we must overcome at least three conceptual barriers. Editing: Jim W. Dean

What can still be borrowed from the Athenians?

A few highlights of ancient Athenian democracy show that Athens was far better governed than any contemporary “democracies.”

Two recent referenda forcefully show that real democracy is just as effective in the contemporary world as it had been in ancient Greece.
The answer to both questions is the same: genuine (or direct) democracy."

* See more at link

[risveglio]

51 wolves and 49 sheep used direct democracy today to determine what is for dinner. They decided on mutton.

[Hermeticus]

I'm not sure that ancient Athens persuades me to accept all of democracy. The city-state of Athens was a very small country indeed. Athens also became tyrannical over other Greek city-states. She engaged in a mad war against Syracuse and lost. Athenian Democracy was far from perfect.

The knowledge and resolve of the people in a system of self-government (Republic or Democracy) is more important the kind of system they have. Intention is most important and no system of government can compensate for defective intention.

[Hermeticus]

Now that I've read his article more thoroughly, I have to say that it is persuasive. But, most Americans before the establishment of the US government were not really involved in the creation of the government, so it was never really democratic to begin with. I still think there's going to need to be major change among the people before any real reform can be instituted.

[Alie]

Now that I've read his article more thoroughly, I have to say that it is persuasive. But, most Americans before the establishment of the US government were not really involved in the creation of the government, so it was never really democratic to begin with. I still think there's going to need to be major change among the people before any real reform can be instituted.

I totally agree that we need global awakening. But this article is part of that awakening.

I usually post things from Veteran's Today for 2 reasons --- not because I buy into 100% of their viewpoint -- My core motive is to show the dialogue that is beginning to show up on a NOT-So-Alternative news source, which is very encouraging. The second reason is because Veteran's Today bloggers/authors offer well sourced information that is worthy for consideration.

[Dennis Leahy]

51 wolves and 49 sheep used direct democracy today to determine what is for dinner. They decided on mutton.
Yesterday, 1500 "elected" and appointed minions of the corporatocracy used their well-honed and well-oiled machine to fleece 320,000,000 sheep. (That was just in the US.) They'll do it again tomorrow, and the next day, and the next. A republic does not protect citizens from bad decisions, especially if bad people control the process of "electing" and appointing all of the representatives. We currently have no way and no chance to have representatives in the US representing the people. That's not theoretical, but your espoused negativity toward democracy is completely theoretical in the US (since we've never had it.)

Was the US set up as a Republic simply to guard the castle for the rich landowners (who we now call the "founding fathers?")

Is the idea is to kick all the corporatocracy to the curb, but to remain steadfast on the concept of the US being a republic that allows the representatives of the people to ignore the people (with the only recourse of the people being recall or losing a following election?) To use the above example, 1500 wolves would still be able to use the concept of a republic to rule over 320,000,000 sheep. How can that possibly be a solution? What if the 535 elected legislators who retain the right to ignore the will of the people decide to take the US to another war, or decide that Monsanto is too valuable a business to lose in the US economy so they refuse to stop them, or what if the 535 legislators decide that the people are suspected terrorists and need more surveillance, more police, more drones, more spying?

The political framework I would fight and die for is expressed in The Reset Button. (I have NEVER heard anyone else with a workable plan, even a possibly workable plan to get the banking and military-industrial complex out of governance.) Once the bankers/corporatists/oligarchs no longer control elections, real, honest dialogue can begin to decide whether to leave the political framework as is (representatives woo voters, get elected, ignore citizens), or to move towards the definition of a "representative" and actually have Senators and Representatives mandated to either a.) at least hear the citizen's views, or b.) be mandated to "represent" the majority viewpoint, for all but emergency legislation.

I'd personally vote for "b" and would not be too fearful that the pendulum would swing too far toward what democracy opponents call "mob rule" (especially considering what we have now is akin to Mafia style near-dictatorial rule of "dons"/gang family leaders.) The pendulum would need to swing VERY far from where it is now to even possibly become problematic. I have heard opponents of democracy say that they believe that citizens would demand legislation for a 4 hour work week at $1000/hr, but I think that fear is unfounded, patronizing and parental, and betrays the fear-based repressive nature of those against democracy.

The article does miss one major point: modern mass media. If modern mass media remains in the hands of oligarchs, and are allowed to lie through their teeth and spin lies into "truth" and truth into lies - as they do now - then decisions made by the majority WILL be tainted and aimed towards the agenda of the oligarchs. So, mass media reform must be a part of the equation.

When Ben Franklin said "A republic - if you can keep it", was he worried about it slipping toward plutocracy or was he worried about it slipping towards democracy? We know what a plutocracy feels like (it sucks), and I for one am more than ready to kick the pendulum the other direction.

Dennis

p.s. My apologies to those in other countries that my reply is so Americentric, but hope it applies somewhat to others as well.